My sympathies are with the Ukrainian people in their fight against the Russian invaders. However, the temptation to paint Ukraine in glowing terms should be resisted. Their government has had a turbulent history, as one might expect in a country with a divided population consisting of native Ukrainians and seventeen percent ethnic Russians. Most observers prior to the war rated Ukraine as only partly free with endemic corruption. The banning of opposition parties with ties to Russia is not particularly surprising, but demonstrates how far from a democracy Ukraine is. As our own history during the Revolution and Civil War amply demonstrates, nations fighting for their lives will infringe upon liberty, but, after making all allowances, the action of banning the parties, with the government taking control of the media, should cause all Americans to remember that foreign policy is rarely the choice between pure good and pure evil, but rather between imperfect and worse.
I agree with you, Donald.
Now, review America under the heels of Senile Joe’s CCP-controlled handlers.
The political prisoners of January 6 T.Shaw could wax eloquent on the subject.
I went and looked at the political parties, as best I could.
The only one that I found any elected people from has the literal platform of rejoin Russia, and was most recently in the news, last year, for expelling one of their elected guys from the party because he personally found Putin objectionable. (The additional context that one can be jailed for calling the military invasion of the Ukraine a war or invasion if one is in Russia, and that’s been so for quite some time, is also worth knowing.)
Additionally, the media thing is quite confusing– since the four nation-wide broadcasting networks made the change to Unity or whatever they’re calling it a month ago. (found that out when I heard “national networks” and wanted to know if they meant PBS/BBC type, or in the country)
Feb 28th:
Ukraine’s biggest media groups have united to broadcast one all-encompassing news service to cover the conflict, as they urge the world to impose “media sanctions” and turn off Russian channels.
In a statement in the past hour, 1+1 Media, StarLightMedia, Media Group Ukraine and Inter Media Group said they are now showing one newscast entitled United News, which is “promptly providing comprehensive information from different regions of the country.”
The media groups, the four largest in Ukraine, are taking it in turns to helm the show, which has been forged with the co-operation of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy, the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the National Security and Defense Council, the Office of the President of Ukraine and other government bodies.
I don’t have to romanticize the Ukraine to recognize a familiar pattern of “mistakes” in reporting– at this point, they may as well have an R behind their name.
:gumbles: dropped the link, sorry.
https://deadline.com/2022/02/ukraine-media-groups-join-together-for-united-news-urge-world-to-turn-off-russian-channels-1234960684/
I have not heard of anyone romanticizing the previous Ukrainian government that kept Hunter Biden on the payroll and, by extension, sought influence with his father. In fact the media seems quite careful not to bring up the subject of these unsavory activities.
Let us at least remember what Taiwan and South Korea once were and what they have become. They transitioned from dictatorships to democracies, so there is hope for a free Ukraine.
:heh: Much less romancing the guy that the Biden crony replaced– the one Putin wants to put back in, who’s been living in Moscow since he fled the country after his ‘victory’? (For those following along, that’s the one whose opponent was poisoned. And whose treatment was one of the reasons Putin invaded the first time….)
Honestly, only time I’ve seen them brought up at all is when people are trying to conflate them with the Jewish comedian guy.
I am sure that Putin knows well the effect that poisoning has on opposition candidates.
No one should romanticize any government. Put not your trust in princes. But peoples are another matter entirely.
I don’t know enough about the parties which have been suppressed to be able to make a judgment. Are they supporting or aiding the invader? Or are they being punished for being Russophile before the war?
Lincoln did things in wartime to preserve the Union which we cannot approve of in peacetime–having the traitor Vallandigham tried and convicted by a military tribunal for an anti-war speech. Not to mention suppressing pro-Confederate newspapers, taking control of the telegraph and censoring the news. But survival cancels programming–people and polities will do what they can to stay alive. And I won’t condemn Lincoln for it.
As to corruption, I am reading “The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine” by Serhii Plokhy. I am jumping around a bit, but his accounting of contemporary Ukrainian corruption is worthwhile. While it is still bad, it is nowhere near as bad as it was before, especially in the banking sector, where the banks used to be the personal ATMs for sleazy oligarchs.
And honestly, I’m more than a little tired of hearing the anti-anti-Putin brigade talk about Ukrainian corruption when that in Russia is galaxies worse. As the performance of the Russian army in this conflict proves in spades. It’s clear that the bulk of the lavish modernization funds spent on the military went into pockets.
As to corruption, I am reading “The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine” by Serhii Plokhy. I am jumping around a bit, but his accounting of contemporary Ukrainian corruption is worthwhile. While it is still bad, it is nowhere near as bad as it was before, especially in the banking sector, where the banks used to be the personal ATMs for sleazy oligarchs.
Theory I’ve seen is that part of why Putin was so sure Ukraine was vastly weaker than it turned out to be is exactly because they’ve been fighting corruption, which Putin “knows” will only weaken them– one of the big money laundering mafia guys, who gets reported as a Ukrainian mobster, was indeed born in the Ukraine…but he lives in Moscow, they booted him out after the Empire lost its grip.
Result being, the Ukrainian population isn’t nearly as beat-down as the Russian, because even with their current levels of corruption they’ve seen improvement. Russia hasn’t.
Are they supporting or aiding the invader? Or are they being punished for being Russophile before the war?
The latter I believe is the case.
“And I won’t condemn Lincoln for it.”
Neither will I. I don’t know if I would be so charitable in my assessment if the War had been lost and permanent damage done to American civil liberties. Things coming out right in the end covers a multitude of sins.
“While it is still bad, it is nowhere near as bad as it was before, especially in the banking sector, where the banks used to be the personal ATMs for sleazy oligarchs.”
I confess that my knowledge of the subject is not strong. It does seem like more than a few American politicians and their cronies have been making ill-gotten gains in Ukraine, along with other Eastern European nations.
“And honestly, I’m more than a little tired of hearing the anti-anti-Putin brigade talk about Ukrainian corruption when that in Russia is galaxies worse.”
They are sister societies and neither have ever handled financial matters with Swiss level probity. The sins of Ukraine in no way justify the Russian invasion. What we do about it should be guided by concerns as to justice and our own national interest. I think that means we seek to have the invasion fail, without risking a nuclear war.
I’m sorry the Ukrainian government has done this. One might hope that when the dust settles they’ll be permitted to reassemble.
Governments are composed of human beings, and very often the sort of human being attracted to public employment isn’t the flower of the community. That having been said, in disputes between collectivities, one side is usually closer to the good and the right than the other.
They transitioned from dictatorships to democracies, so there is hope for a free Ukraine.
Agreed. Certainly far more hope than would be the case in a Ukraine held down by Russian bayonets.
Truth be told, the level of corruption in this country (at least in federal politics) would have been beyond my imagining. I’m recalling Michael Kinsley’s complaints ca. 1984 about Walter Mondale’s lobbying business (undertaken while nominally a partner of a law firm named Winston & Strawn). He noted that Mondale’s financial disclosures indicated a net worth of about $15,000 in 1980 and over $500,000 in 1984. (Given changes in nominal incomes, comparable figures today would be about $90,000 and $3,000,000). It was a reasonable complaint on Kinsley’s part. Now look at the stupefying sums the Clintons and Obamas have been collecting. Before the bribes pipeline went dry, Bilge was charging $189,000 a speech; 16 speeches would net him a sum equivalent to that it took Walter Mondale more than two years to accumulate. The Obamas as we speak are building a home in Hawaii; they bought the house used for the set of Magnum, P.I. and razed it. It will be their 3d luxury property. Neither one has practiced law in > 25 years.
Speaking of sleazy oligarchs:
For some strange reason, Yelena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia, has not been the subject of sanctions by the Adminstration.
See if you can guess why:
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/03/19/i-think-were-done-here-furious-psaki-claims-no-confirmation-of-senate-report-hunter-biden-got-3-5m-from-russia-1214593/
“foreign policy is rarely the choice between pure good and pure evil, but rather between imperfect and worse?” I thought foreign policy was about what’s best for the United States of America, not about other nations being good or evil.
“I don’t know if I would be so charitable in my assessment if the war had been lost and permanent damage done to American civil liberties.” So, are we to the point of adopting the once universally condemned axiom: “the end justifies the means.” Of course, this would apply to both sides in this conflict. (just remember, the winners write the history books) Consider that Soros, Swab, the lying media, and the military-industrial complex (warned against by well known leftist Eisenhower) have pushed for war supporting Ukraine from the beginning. All civilian casualties in war should be deplored. Just ask the ghosts of the at least half million dead Iraq’s or those who perished in the fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo. Once more, a war is one of the best hopes to save Biden and the Democrats. Our great loss, so far, is freedom of speech. No one has a right not to be offended. In fact, the right to expound offensive views is a basic test for the existence of this freedom.
“So, are we to the point of adopting the once universally condemned axiom: “the end justifies the means.””
Of course it must. A neighbor has a tree hanging over onto your property. You go to court not to war. The end never justifies all means but it certainly must justify the means employed or a venture is immoral.
“have pushed for war supporting Ukraine from the beginning.”
Rubbish. it is Putin who invaded and it is his war.
You need to broaden your reading. The histories issued by losers of conflicts have been very influential. “The Lost Cause” and Wehrmacht historiography from Franz Halder are two that leap immediately to mind.
A neighbor has a tree hanging over onto your property. You go to court not to war.
… But that’s exactly it, Don. The end (removing the tree limb) being achieved would not justify the means of going to war to have it removed. (Going to court is a means which doesn’t require any justification) It’s just another way of saying you can do evil that good may come of it, which we know isn’t true (Romans 3:8, CCC 1789)
Rubbish. it is Putin who invaded and it is his war.
True, but that doesn’t mean that western war-hawks haven’t been calling for greater, riskier interventions (no-fly-zones, et.) and even direct military action from early on. There’s a lot of folks in DC and on cable news shows who seem to want exactly that.
Going to court is a means which doesn’t require any justification
Of course it does. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. You don’t engage in it unless the end sought justifies the cost and the time.
Of course it does. Litigation is expensive and time consuming. You don’t engage in it unless the end sought justifies the cost and the time.
“Justification” means To Make Just, it implies an unjust or fallen condition to start with. (The tax collector calling out “Have mercy on me, a sinner” left justified, the self-aggrandizing Pharisee did not) Going to court isn’t unjust (assuming a fair court system), however, in the example you give, it may not be prudent to choose that course. The point is: the phrase “the ends justify the means” (commonly) implies a good end being achieved by wicked means. And that’s never true. (Because of Romans and the CCC cited above … not to get wildly off topic 🙂 )
The point is: the phrase “the ends justify the means” (commonly) implies a good end being achieved by wicked means.
Usually brought up by people who oppose both the means and the end. There are of course plenty of things which are wicked if the end did not justify it. Blowing up people would be wicked for parking in my parking lot. Blowing up alien invaders would not be. Engaging in flagellation would be wicked unless done, under careful conditions, as part of one’s duty as a relgious. Shooting to death someone stealing a loaf of bread would be wicked. Shooting to death someone stealing a child would not be. Of course some means are so wicked that no end can ever justify them. For me that would include abjuring Christ, cannibalism and voting the straight Democrat ticket.
and the military-industrial complex (warned against by well known leftist Eisenhower)
The ratio of military expenditure to domestic product is, at 0.037, about 1/3 of what it was in 1956, at the midpoint of Eisenhower’s time in office. The number of American troops posted abroad has declined by 75% since 1963.
Just ask the ghosts of the at least half million dead Iraq’s
The death toll as estimated by the Iraq Body Count is about 288,000. Last I checked, they’d attributed about 15% of the total to coalition forces.
Don
A different but related item.
A few years back both the Ukrainian and Russian Armies were part of the same army.
While they somewhat diverged in different directions since then, they are still have a very long common tradition of how to fight a war.
Anything you do not like about Russian operations the Ukrainian army would do the same things in similar circumstances,
It worked against the Germans, why not?
The Soviets were always better on defense than offense. For an unmotivated conscript it is one thing to be defending home and hearth, quite another to be attacking a country you could care less about.
“Call it the yuck of the Irish.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earned eye rolls Thursday by reading a St. Patrick’s Day poem by Irish musician Bono that declared Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a modern-day version of Ireland’s patron saint.
…
‘Ireland’s sorrow and pain is now the Ukraine and St. Patrick’s name is now Zelensky,’ the poem concluded, equating the legendary Christian missionary with the Jewish wartime leader.
Pelosi approvingly remarked, ‘How about that?’ after finishing her reading, adding to a nearby Catholic priest: ‘What, you like that, Father?’ ”
https://nypost.com/2022/03/17/nancy-pelosi-reads-bono-poem-comparing-zelensky-to-st-patrick/
Usually brought up by people who oppose both the means and the end
… Not in my experience, and that seems rather uncharitable, but not being a proficient mind reader, I can’t say if you’re statement is “usually” correct. Human nature being what it is, though, people tend to believe the ends they wish to achieve are just. Even Putin probably thinks his goals are just. Heck, he might even think his means are just, so that kinda goes against what you’re stating here. But the rest of your argument is nonsensical. You’re not just comparing apples and oranges, you’re comparing apples and quasars. For the ends to justify the means, at least the ends have to be just, but you conflate just ends with unjust ones. In your example about aliens and parking violations, you equate two ends that are wildly different. In the case of the aliens, the ends are survival of yourself, your family, maybe your planet (a just goal), and the means are self defense. In the other example, the end you would seek is petty and horrifically disproportional vengeance (that’s not just) and the means is murder. You can’t simplify the equation to “means = bombing and ends = death”, because not all deaths equate, and therefor not all bombings equate. The circumstances of the goal you achieve doesn’t justify the means, they define the means. There’s a significant difference. The 5th commandment doesn’t say “Thou shalt not murder, except to protect yourself from alien invaders” because self defense isn’t murder, and even if you fail to achieve your goal of self-preservation, your actions would still be just. The ends didn’t justify them.
I think you’ve misunderstood the moderator.
Not in my experience, and that seems rather uncharitable,
I doubt if you have lived a life in the courts CAG where arguments tend to be “convenient” for the side making them.
Human nature being what it is, though, people tend to believe the ends they wish to achieve are just.
Many people do have a “convenient” view of what is just. Forthright, honest sinners tend to be almost a relief when encountered. Putin, judging from his career, probably believes in power and not much else.
“For the ends to justify the means, at least the ends have to be just,”
That is what I said.
“you equate two ends that are wildly different.”
Distinguishing between ends that justify and ends that do not.
You can’t simplify the equation to “means = bombing and ends = death”
That’s your equation CAG not mine. My equation is that in judging means one has to look at the ends. The law does this all the time. I have the right to the end of self defense. The means that I can employ are directly related to that end. If I am confronted with an armed assailant I may use deadly force to reach my end. If I am assailed by the fists of a much weaker person I am not entitled to use deadly force to reach my end. The means I employ are justified or not by whether they are necessary to reach my end.
The Church has traditionally often done this. Example: It is wrong to steal a loaf of bread. It is not wrong, in cases of extreme want, to steal a loaf of bread to feed one’s family.
Any means employed that are not justified by the end sought are immoral means. When the end itself is immoral the means used to achieve it are always immoral and cannot justify the means. Thus someone who initiates an assault against an individual usually cannot claim a right of self defense during the commission of the assault.
That is what I said.
No, it’s not. There’s a difference between “The ends and the means are both just” and “the ends are just therefore the means are just”.
Stealing is wrong, every time. God’s law provides for those in need (Leviticus 19, 23 and elsewhere in the bible) and in those cases it is not stealing The ends define the means, they do not justify them. The means here are already just, because God said so (Leviticus above). Stealing is not just, also, because God said so (7th commandment) 🙂
The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever.
The statutes of the LORD are true, all of them just
~Psalm 19:10
“Stealing is wrong, every time.”
Not at all. Stealing from an enemy in a civil war can be praiseworthy. Stealing stolen property to give it back to those who it was stolen from may by praiseworthy. On the other hand something may be legal and remain theft. I would argue that confiscatory tax rates are a form of theft, as is conscription in time of peace. I am an expert on law as it is applied in Illinois and I state unhesitatingly that there is a clear distinction between morality and law.
and “the ends are just therefore the means are just”.
If I may quote myself:
Of course some means are so wicked that no end can ever justify them. For me that would include abjuring Christ, cannibalism and voting the straight Democrat ticket.
Let me give you an example. Say I was accused of a crime I did not commit, and the prosecutor had found a witness willing to testify that I was guilty. Well, it’s not just that I should go to prison for the rest of my life for a crime I didn’t commit. The ends I seek, my freedom, is just! So I murder the witness.
I get off, because there’s no witness against me. A just end, since I didn’t commit the crime. Does that make the murder just?
No, because your worthy end of being found innocent does not justify depriving the lying or mistaken witness of his life. Let’s take murder off the table. Would your hypothetical justify someone else committing perjury to save innocent you?
Let me give you a counter example. Your child is on trial for a murder she did not commit. You know beyond a doubt that your child is innocent and you know who the murderer is. No one believes you. You aid your child in fleeing the jurisdiction. You have committed the crime of aiding and abetting a fugitive. Does that end justify that means?
Another way of putting this axiom is: “you may not do evil so long as the result of that evil brings about a greater good “. This has been the teaching of the Church from the beginning (I do not claim to speak with any type authority). Although there is plenty of room for disagreement on what may be evil, I am shocked to see apparent disagreement with this, what I see, as a dogmatic principle. As a 49 year veteran of the law courts, I get it that lawyers sometimes have to present legal arguments advocating positions they may personally oppose. As for broadening my reading list, I have always made it a point to read and consider opposing (and often repulsive) viewpoints. I am amazed to see how quickly well meaning people jump on the bandwagon of those who have been lying to everyone for years. My intention is not to start a debate, out of respect for the “owner “ of this website, but rather to at least encourage some critical thinking , as I believe that being sucked into this war is the last and best hope of Biden and the leftist Democrats to salvage the November elections. Turn your attention to China, admittedly a Putin ally, who are taking full advantage of the situation. Hopefully, we can all agree to pray for the common people of Ukraine and Russia who are victims of this war regardless of the merits of other opinions.
as I believe that being sucked into this war is the last and best hope of Biden and the leftist Democrats to salvage the November elections.
Military success is of little use usually in politics, unless you are a general who won a popular war. The late George Bush had a 91 percent approval rating immediately after the Gulf War in 1991. Churchill was thrown out by the voters after VE day in 1945.
Newsflash: Mexico just announced signing of Mutual Defense Treaty with Russia. Will accept bio-labs and limited nuclear weapons. U.S. involks Monroe Doctrine, sends troops to border . (Not True-Satire) Would this be a similar situation?
No. Ukraine gave up their 5000 nukes to the Russians in 1996 and the Russians guaranteed the independence of Ukraine. We haven’t taken any territory from Mexico since the Gadsen Purchase in 1853. Mexico has bio warfare labs. Several nations in Latin America have military ties with Russia sans any threat of American invasion. Mexico and the old Soviet Union often had fairly close ties. The Monroe Doctrine applies to European, or other non-American powers, attempting to conquer any nations in this hemisphere
Good Points and I hope you are correct. The main difference I fear I the shilling for war of all the dishonest actors, especially media, in the last several years. Not sure other leaders had that.
What I’m curious about is how you can hold that axoim and then allow for self defense. As an example:
Man X [kills another human]- means [in order to take their stuff.]- ends
Man Y [kills another human]- means [in order to prevent his own death and being robbed.]- ends
If we are now allowed to consider the ends of either of them, then both men are equally guilty as they both killed someone else. Therefore you cannot defend yourself nor others as “defense of” would be an ends which we can’t consider when dealing with the means.
How would cops even function? Since we hopefully agree that kidnapping and restraining someone against their will is evil, then cops can’t arrest anybody. The considerations of holding for trial, protecting possible victims, and protecting an innocent man from a lynch mob would all be “ends” which therefore cannot be used to justify the means of arrest.
Newsflash: Mexico just announced signing of Mutual Defense Treaty with Russia. Will accept bio-labs and limited nuclear weapons. U.S. involks Monroe Doctrine, sends troops to border . (Not True-Satire) Would this be a similar situation?
No, it would not, because Latin American countries aren’t threatened by the United States so would not be motivated to join military alliances contra the United States.
That is a fair point. But as much as I loathe being on the same side as hyperhawks like Cheney and Kinzinger, let alone this administration, I came to my position despite my “don’t stand so close” dislike.
“Consider the source” is much less a fallacy than a compass these days. But genuine discernment requires getting past the reflex of “those smug and/or malevolent clowns are wrong” and assigning proper value to actual facts, regardless of the source.
It sure isn’t fun sometimes.
Given that the political parties that were banned were banned because they had ties to a nation hostile to the Ukraine and specifically hostile to Ukraine’s movements toward becoming more democratic, I think that NOT banning those parties would have equally demonstrated how far from a democracy Ukraine is. Banning those parties at least signaled a commitment toward continuing toward becoming more democratic, rather than capitulating.
Imperfect indeed.
I am amazed to see how quickly well meaning people jump on the bandwagon of those who have been lying to everyone for years. My intention is not to start a debate, out of respect for the “owner “ of this website, but rather to at least encourage some critical thinking
Russia has invaded the Ukraine with the intention of annexing it and killing and exiling its political class.
I agree with Mr. Parrish to the extent that Biden’s puppeteers: the CCP-controlled junta, and the media, and the academy, and the tech titans are for Ukraine.
Of course, then Ukraine is irredeemably evil and must be wiped off the face of the Earth. .
You ain’t often wrong if you oppose everything those evil, [expletive-deleted] people propose.
If we are now allowed to consider the ends of either of them, then both men are equally guilty as they both killed someone else. Therefore you cannot defend yourself nor others as “defense of” would be an ends which we can’t consider when dealing with the means.
Murder =/= self defense. Murder is evil, no end can justify it. Self defense is just, no end is necessary to justify it. The truth is obscured when using the neutral term “kill”, but the axiom implies that the means are not neutral.
But they are. That’s exactly the game you are playing. What makes “killing” a murder vs self defense IS THE ENDS. If you say “ends” cannot be considered then you lose the ability to distinguish between murder and defense because it is exactly the “ends” of either which define the means of “killing” as murder or defense.
In other words in your reply, you just used ends to justify means and invalidated your own point.
Nate-
Usually the division is that one accepts that the actions to stop [attack] can kill the other person, but they would be happy if they somehow lived.
The other seeks death. [Even if it doesn’t fix the problem.]
Sorry of any typoes or missed points. New baby got here early, only have phone.
New baby got here early, only have phone.
Great news Foxfier!